Paul Shelton

You just know I have to respond to all this great conversation.  I will share that I usually write my posts in Word and then post them on the site.  Not this time. I have to burst out with my considerable joy having inspired, if I can take any credit, this great round of thought. Briefly, I want to laud you, Marvin, for "getting in the spirit" and giving us your greatest treatise.  You are right, I never saw your post, and so probably payed no attention to tense in your statement, or I would not have chided you for deleting it.  I will say that I think you are perfectly within appropriate behavior, on any social site, for interjecting on a subject initially introduced by others.  Personally, I see nothing at all wrong with that. 

As for the definition of an atheist, I have read many (reading just one source will get you in trouble), and I don't think your list comports with modern thinking in the non-believing community.  First, by establishing a gnostic athiest who "knows" there is no god, and an agnostic atheist who isn't quite sure, to balance this Aristotelian logic we need comparables of belief: the believer who "knows" there is a God, and the wishy-washy believer who isn't quite sure. I don't believe however, it works that way.  It largely boils down to understanding the difference between the deductive and the inductive.  Deductive proof gives us conclusions of absolute certainty.  This can only happen in "closed" logical systems. Induction, more commonly called empiricism, can only yield conclusions with a probability attached. Science is called an "empirical exercise", meaning its findings are almost exclusively empirical. And with that background, we can now understand that an absolute belief in God requires a closed logical system, which, quite clearly, we don't have.  This means that no one who claims belief in God can possibly, without gross logical violations, have absolute belief, and must attach a probablility to their belief, just like, you guessed it, atheists do. However, we know believers DO claim absolute belief, and that is one monstous blemish in their argumentation. Atheists, that is, all the dozens upon dozens I have ever known, understand and accept that their claim is empirical.  They would ALL readily agree that they actually believe that there is a vanishing small probablility that any supernatural agent exists or in any way manages the natural world or the outcome of our lives. For this reason, I conclude that all of us, believers and non-believers alike are either agnostic at one end or the other of the probability scale, and the only identifier that matters is degree. Are you 99.9999999% sure there is a God, or are you 99.9999999% sure no god exists -- or are you stuck somewhere in the middle at 50/50.  If believers want to claim absolute belief, then anyone only 99% sure there is a God must be an agnostic -- or, since they concede the empirical nature of the question, and don't claim absolute belief, they may as well be called athiests, if we define atheism as simply allowing any measure of doubt in the question.

And there is so much more to be said -- but thanks to Marvin and Eric for "getting involved".  I loved both your posts. And Emilie, you are a blessing willing to be informed from all sides.

Marvin Knox

Paul,

Thank you for your measured response. 

Obviously everyone commenting on their personal beliefs would prefer to be allowed to nuance or explain in detail what those beliefs are.   No one likes being labeled something exactly like something else.  We are, after all, everyone as individual as the snowflakes.  

As I have said before – I don’t like being labeled any more than non-believers do.  That usually assumes things about what I believe, and or why I believe them, which may or may not be entirely accurate.  Within my own general associates (worldwide Christianity) I try to resist labels for that very reason. 

The way I see and apply various biblical doctrines in my own life is rather “eclectic” – most who know me would agree.  I try to not allow people to call me a “Calvinist”, “Protestant”, “Baptist”, “charismatic”, “Pentecostal”, “Word of Faith”, or any other grouping without early on defining just how I might be lumped in with a grouping and how I might be rejected in that group. 

I’m sure, as we have seen here,  non-believers dislike being pigeon holed every bit as much as I do. 

Paul – you say that it is appropriate for someone here to chime into a conversation even though not invited.  I participate in many forums of various types.  I agree and I do exactly that.  It would be a dull forum indeed if all we had was two people talking together and no one else was allowed in. 

However – in the case of my thoughts on “Zealot” and it’s author – I chimed in with a rather blistering critique of a book someone else had commented on (or recommended – I can’t remember).  Had you or Rick recommended the book – at this stage – I would have willingly and happily posted my opinions and I would not have had those later misgivings about it as I posted   But, in the case of Laura, this was someone with whom I had not spoken before and a person who doesn’t jump into things like this very often.  I felt that it had been insensitive and it was therefore inappropriate for me to have dropped a boatload of negative comments on her just after she had ventured out into these deep waters- perhaps with some trepidation.   

Now - definitions of atheists vary in the degree of  thought and word a person has put into consideration of God.  To not nuance the term in each case –and simply say that an atheist is one who does not believe in deity – one would have to then say that cows, chickens, new born humans and the mentally deficient are atheists.  I undoubtedly have said in the past that an atheist is one who does not believe in God.  But I certainly don’t mean to use the term in that overreaching way.  Actually, it seems to me that no one should or perhaps even does use it that way.   

IMO – to be labeled (by me at least) as an atheist – one must have given some thought to the matter and have commented on it enough that I understood pretty much where he or she stands.

I suppose we could say that an absence of a theistic belief system which didn’t have a conscious rejection of God should be called “implicit atheism”.   “Explicit atheism”, on the other hand would be a conscious rejection of God’s existence.

Now you rightly have said, “an absolute belief in God requires a closed logical system, which, quite clearly, we don't have.  This means that no one who claims belief in God can possibly, without gross logical violations, have absolute belief, and must attach a probability to their belief, just like, you guessed it, atheists do.  ……..  Atheists, that is, all the dozens upon dozens I have ever known, understand and accept that their claim is empirical.  They would ALL readily agree that they actually believe that there is a vanishing small probability that any supernatural agent exists or in any way manages the natural world or the outcome of our lives.”

We do indeed live in a system  in which we cannot correctly “deduce” things which lay outside of this system.  To speak with any kind of authority on the matter of God, one must leave this closed system to be able to do so accurately. 

I believe that millions of people have done so by now.  They are, IMO, currently around the throne of God and worshipping Him – as is His due.  But of the ones who have gone before us, with the apparent exception of the apostles John and Paul, none are  likely going to be allowed to report back to us here.   

If you will allow me to quote God on the matter -  There is one notable exception to this fact and that is Jesus Himself – God in the flesh.

“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.”

We Christians have faith that One has visited us from outside of this “deductively challenged” system   He is the One Who is thereby able to correctly deduce what we can only comment on “inductively” or “empirically” here from earth.

Whether you and I will be able to or be forced to deduce things about the existence of God from within another kind of system within what is likely the next couple of decades remains to be seen.  I believe that we will and I have prepared myself for that eventuality via a method which I believe has been recommended to us by the very God who visited us from outside of this system.   

To quote the scriptures again, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”

However, we know believers DO claim absolute belief, and that is one monstous blemish in their argumentation.

While you are correct in agreeing with the scriptures that few if any of us can deduce these things absolutely in the here and now – I don’t believe that believers who claim absolute belief are exactly displaying a “monstrous” blemish in their reasoning.  They are – after all and by faith – not primarily deducing things for themselves but are merely quoting the One whom they believe can so deduce things about deity accurately - having been with God and indeed is Himself God.

What you may view as a blemish God seems to view as the beautiful product of a faith that He Himself has authored in those of such fatih.. 

In leaving this post for now - I state again that you are right that most people, be they believer or a  non-believer, can't know anything for absolute certainty  about God until we leave this system which we are all forced to operate in while in this flesh. All we are able to do is pray that God will give us the faith to feel that we “know” things about God precisedly and only because He Himself has told us certain things about Himself.

That being the case – (and putting aside faith for now) - we should  most, to be entirely accurate, label ourselves, believers and non-believers alike,  “agnostics”.  It seems that you agree.  

Some may prefer to label themselves atheists ( like Rick for instance) – but they can’t logically claim to be what I called Gnostic atheists (i.e. those who know for sure there is no God).   Fortunately Rick has made it clear that he does not fit into that foolish category.   

God correctly calls such a Gnostic atheist a fool.  That is not to say  that someone who uses for themselves the label "atheist" is automatically labeled a fool by God.  But the one who claims to know about the lack of existence of God for sure is a fool.  I concur with God.  Such a one is not only illogical.  He is a fool for stating emphatically something which He cannot know.

It seems to me that your post in which so adeptly outlined the necessity of a merely empirical belief or lack of belief in God and the ridiculousness of claiming a deductive belief or disbelief in God – agrees totally with God and I on the matter.  I.e. - that it is foolish to say you know for sure there is no God. 

God said, and I believe it was indeed Him who said it  ---  “The fool has said in their heart there is not God.” 

Again I point out that neither He nor I said that the one who has some doubt about God is a fool.  To do that would be to deny what it means to be a mere human trapped in this fallen system.  

Nor is God commenting on the exact meaning we may each have for the word atheist or whether we choose to apply that label to ourselves instead of calling ourselves agnostics . 

What He and I are commenting on when we call an absolute atheist a fool is the fact that such a one has obviously no understanding of how deductive and empirical logic must of necessity work here in this dimension.  

I would certainly never call a person a fool simply for believing that we can’t know the things of God for sure.  That would be silly since both you and I agree that it is the lot of most of us here on earth to not be able to know for sure.

Nor would I call a person a fool who simply used the term atheist in a different way than I understand it.   If a person prefers the label atheist to agnostic – I’m absolutely fine with that- so long as they will nuance for me what they are saying (just as Rick, for instance, has done).

I’m typing here without rewrites myself just as you did.  Hopefully my thoughts concerning your post will still be clear.

Hopefully also - those not involved directly in these discussions will understand that my own intent is not to turn this forum into a lecture on the correctness of Christianity over against some other belief system.  I am merely responding to posts and questions directed to me.

Having said that - I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.  I am persuaded that God is able to keep what I have entrusted to Him against the day of judgment which awaits us all.  I am always willing to give a defense for the hope within me.

Emilie Lamphere (Ortega)

Paul, Marv and Rick:   I think I am dizzy from all the back and forth of defining atheist and agnostic.  Oh there are many sources for definition, as you say.   Simply put, you either believe in the scriptures and the presence of our Lord in your life or you do not.  The definition of atheist and agnostic, bottomline, is they are degrees of belief from nonbelievers to "I don't knowers".    Anyone every read the series of "Left Behind" books or see the movie or read "The Shack".   Yes finctional works based on biblical principles.  Both were very powerful and my simple mind says, believe or there is no eternal life.    Who does ot want that?   And, living now is much easier knowing I have someone watching my back in Heaven.   Simply put, but is my truth.

Thomas Stromberg

Like Emilie, and Marvin,  I too am a strong believer in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 

At the same time I am what might be called a “liberal” Christian, in the sense that I believe in health care for all, am pro-immigration, am in favor of social justice, more government regulation, stricter gun control, and free public education.  Strong environmental laws, and  a woman’s right to choose.    

We have so many problems to fix that need paying for, that I say we should all be paying higher taxes, not lower.  And, ya, we need a fair tax structure proportional to income.  Not one made up by lobbyists.

Sadly,  it’s unlikely any of this will ever happen, as there’s just too much money to be made by leaving things as they are.

I have friends, and now ex-friends, who also identify as Christian.  Many would call themselves conservative evangelicals.  And while we have one core belief in common,  in almost all other respects every one of them believes in the polar opposite of what I do.  In fact over the past several years this lack of common ground has led to the point where we’ve almost stopped talking.  I mean, there’s nothing to talk about.  It’s that polarization thing. 

My wife and I find ourselves gravitating toward people who are similarly “liberal”.  Although it doesn’t seem liberal to us.  It just seems normal. 

For example it seems normal to me to ask, if we could save one human life by taking even only one gun off the street, wouldn’t it be worthwhile? 

Anyway, done ranting now.  I’ll go back to biting my nails.  Thanks for listening.

-Tom

Emilie Lamphere (Ortega)

Tom, I am with you on all your points except one.   A womans right to choose.   I am prolife and always will be.  Maybe some of my reasons come from the inability to ever have children biologically.   The other is my Christian faith believing that abortion is the killing of a human being, however small.   For me, all I need to do is look at an ultrasound, where the human image is displayed so clearly;  how could anyone doubt that it deserves to live.  

Sandra Wittmeier (Taylor)

Thank you to those of you who have offered to contribute to the class fund. Please send checks payable to—Sammamish High School Class of 63

C/O Sandra Taylor

Address: 34814 SE Jacobia St

                Snoqualmie, WA 98065

Again thank you,

Sandy

Eric (Rick) Moon

To everyone participating and/or lurking in this forum:  I would first of all like to make explicit my affectionate and respectful feelings for all of you; we all shared a brief but formative and impressionable period of our lives, and that makes you special to me.  I am enjoying the exchange of views that is going on, and I thank everyone who has given all of us the benefit of learning about their ideas and experiences.

So I hope nobody takes what I write personally.  It's all about the ideas.

So specifically to Tom, something you referred to in your latest post got me thinking, and what occurred to me could possibly serve as a springboard for further discussion.

My attention was caught by your use of the term "social justice".  It seems to me that "social justice", as much as it has a nice ring to it, is an oxymoron.  Most of the time when you hear that term employed, it means that someone, or some group, is about to get it in the neck.

Don't get me wrong; I have at least as much compassion and concern as the next guy for those of our fellow human beings who are struggling and/or oppressed.  My problem with typical social justice promoters is their favored recipe for achieving same:  Step 1 - define the outcome you consider just;  Step 2 - employ coercion and theft to try to create that outcome.  I like to refer to this as the "deus ex machina" model of government.

The justification for this brand of authoritarianism seems to be the idea that any outcome other than an egalitarian one is by definition unjust, and the way to correct such injustice is to employ the institution of government to take stuff from whoever has it, whether they have got it by fair means or foul, and redistribute it to those who don't have as much stuff.  This tenaciously held idea seems to be based on 1) very shallow thinking, i.e, the idea that one person's gain is always another person's loss, and 2) an addiction to expressing righteous indignation and vilifying everyone who is doing OK as having taken something from those who are not doing OK.  The result of this shallow, and demonstrably incorrect, thinking is that people who have done nothing wrong become the victims in these schemes, which is bad enough in itself, but perhaps even worse are the damaging effects that redistributionist policies have on the ability of the economy to function efficiently because of the perverse incentives that inevitably result.  Furthermore, it promotes the sociopathic belief among recipients of the largesse that they somehow, by virtue of their need and supposed victimization, have acquired the right to consume more than they produce.

As a better-than-average golfer, I can testify that you do not get good results by focusing on the results and using more and more force; you get good results by focusing on the process and letting the chips fall where they may.  I believe the same principle holds true in public policy.  We need to stop using the term "justice" as a synomym for "egalitarianism" and stick with the original meaning of the term as a process of fair rules that apply to everyone.  We cannot promote justice by employing unjust means.

In my seldom-humble opinion, we would make more progress if we stopped trying so hard to progress.  If we instead were to devote ourselves to creating more and more procedural justice, and to try to help those who are oppressed by goveernment, including some of our fellow citizens, then I believe we would not be at all disappointed at how the chips will actually fall.  We need to learn to trust evolution, and give up on the impossible dream of intelligent design.

Marvin Knox

Tom,

As one who would also readily calls himself a conservative evangelical – I’d like to comment on your post if I may.

I find it interesting that you seem to class liberals only and not conservative evangelicals with those who believe in health care for all, social justice, stricter gun control, free public education, strong environmental laws, are pro-immigration, and see the need for government regulation (more in many cases). 

I also believe in those things.  So do most of my evangelical friends.  I think it is a matter of degree where you would likely differ from conservative evangelicals. 

Believe it or not - I and my friends are also pro choice – depending on just what a person means by that and depending on how far a person is wiling to take that concept. 

We do have health care for all in this country.  In fact we are the envy of most of the nations on earth in that regard.  We likely differ somewhat on how that health care should be funded and administered.  But we both believe in health care for all. 

We have many gun control laws.  I too believe we need stricter control in some areas.  If we would wisely enforce the laws we have on the books we could better see where stricter control law is needed without infringing too much on the 2^nd amendment rights of law abiding citizens. 

We do have public education for all.  But nothing is free.  It never has been and it never will be in this present world.  We likely disagree as to just how many years into a person’s life that totally tax payer funded education should be available.  But even in the arena of higher education – tax payers currently pay a good portion of the bill in one way or another.

We do have strong environmental laws.  We need to enforce the laws we have more equitably.  We need stronger laws in some areas.  Just where those stronger laws are needed may be a place where we differ somewhat. 

I know of no conservative evangelical who is not pro-immigration.  Our country would not be what it is and would have long ago died on the vine without it.  A belief in enforcing immigration laws and revamping the system we have in conservative ways doesn’t equate to being anti-immigration. 

I certainly believe in social justice.  This nation’s government is the most generous on earth to her poor and to the poor around the world.  Conservative evangelicals lead the way by far when it comes to voluntary social justice outside of governmental involvement.

Hundreds of thousands of our citizens have shed their blood to obtain or insure social justice for those people who were enslaved within our young nation's borders as well as for the citizens of many other nations on this earth,  particularly in the last century.  We honor them on Veteran's Day and Memorial Day every year. 

Social justice also includes laws  with punishment or rehabilitation to protect the weak and innocent from the strong and not so innocent  in whatever area that might be.    

It is exactly in this area that our stark difference concerning abortion comes into play. 

I will discuss this area with you only if you comment back to me indicating that you would like to hear my views purposely placed over against the way liberal Christians approach the subject.  In my sharing those opinions with you – I think I could explain to you why your conservative evangelical friends find it difficult to fellowship with you because of your stance.

Concerning this area – I would reason with you as a self identified Christian in a much different manner than I would a non-Christian - your claiming as you do to be "a stong believer in God. Jesus and the Holy Spirit". 

Non-Christians do not have the Holy Spirit and the scriptures to inform them on the beginnings of human life and it's value the way you and I do, with that leg up on knowledge. They have to be reasoned with strictly from empirical evidence without an appeal to God's Word on those matters.  

If you prefer to leave your comment on abortion as it is without my commenting to you any more on it - that would be fine with me.

Patricia Doyle (McLain)

A year ago tomorrow my sister George passed and I am reminded in this week of thanks giving how grateful I am for her presence in my life. Grateful as well for each of you as well...your civility, intelligence and respect for one another is inspiring. So a simple thank you for your continuing engagement with one another and with me. Blessings. 

Thomas Stromberg

Rick and Marvin

Incisive analysis from you both.  Thanks for your comments.  I may have ranted  a bit overboard, sounded too disillusioned.  Not usually that way.  Might come from reading too much news.

Patricia, so sorry about your sister George.  This time of year is often extra stressful.  I saw an article earlier today entitled Thanksgiving Anxiety Disorder, How to Beat It.
Eek.

Marvin Knox

Has anyone here ever bumped into an old classmate while traveling or living in someplace other than the Bellevue/Seattle area?

I don't know if any of you remember Ernie Dantini who lived in the Eastgate neighborhood while I was young and was a good friend. Everyone called him "E.J. "  He moved away with his family sometime around the time we finished Jr. High and I never knew where.

Years later I was working for a circus and we had a venue at the Montana State Fair in Great Falls Montana.  I was living on the fair grounds for a few days while I waited to move ahead of the circus to put up flyers in the next venue town.  As was my custom, I was "hot walking" race horses to pick up a few extra dollars while I waited at the fairgrounds for my next assignment.

I heard a voice call my name and turned to see E.J. in the crowd waving at me.  He had been living in Montana for quite a few years and he was visiting the state fair with his family.  We had a great reunion with a night on the town and then I moved on and never saw him again.

I also ran accross John Gomez years later while flying for Wien Consolidated airline in Alaska.   I think his father was a captain for N.W. Airlines stationed in Seattle and he grew up around planes.  He was flying cargo in a DC3 at the time - I'm not sure who for. 

He was always pretty cocky and a bit of a dare devil even as a kid and he carried some of that over into his flying.  He was a good pilot.  But he pushed the envelope once too often,crashed his plane and died up there.  That was around 1970 or so if I remember correctly. 

Michael Dmitriev

Marvin, we ran in to Ernie in Anchorage, mid 70’s.  He worked for an accounting firm and was in Anchorage on an audit.....supposedly.  As I recall he was a little reluctant to talk about what he was doing, his family, or his future.  Just as suddenly as he showed up in Anchorage, he disappeared and I never heard from him again.  What years did you work for Wien?  My wife, Carol, woked in accounts payable at the airport from 1970-1977..

Mike Dmitriev 

Sun City West, AZ

Marvin Knox

Mike,

I didn't work for Wien very long - mostly out of Fairbanks and Kotzebue.  I could only stand airline flying for a short time.   They had nice equipment - but it was too often a lot like driving a bus.  If memory serves me, I left Wien in '68 or '69.

I then went to work for The Bureau of Land Management when the oil boom struck and a lot more government activity kicked in.  I flew government inspectors in and landed at road's end as the Prudhoe Bay pipeline and highway were being built.

I also subcontracted flying with Fish and Game and did forest fire related flying with BLM. 

Part time - I instructed pilots at Elmendorf AFB outside of Anchorage.

Ernie was a bit different and I'm thinking that he could be a little wild at times even as an adult.

I have a friend who graduated from Sammamish with us who used to be a little secretive about what he did as well.  Turned out he worked all over the world for the C.I.A. or, as he called it, "Christians In Action".

Maybe he'll chime in here and tell us all about it.  Of course - then he'd probably have to kill us.

Thomas Stromberg

Well, I haven't bumped into any classmates in any states. Didn't know EJ Dantini, but up until 4-5 years ago when driving on 85th St in Rose Hill (Kirkland) I used to pass a building with a big sign E J Dantini and something about accounting. Could that have been him?

Emilie Lamphere (Ortega)

I remember Ernie quite well.   I had a huge crush on him, but he did not even know I existed.   We were friends, but that is all.   He was a fun loving guy, sometime too much.  Maybe he did work for the CIA...that would be interesting.

Marvin Knox

I hadn't thought of searching for Ernie anymore than I have for a few dozen other friends from my youth.  He just happened accross my mind when I was thinking of this subject.

But I Googled him just now and came up with something on "Linkedin".  

Ernie Dantini owner of E.J. Dantini & Co. CPA's   -    Greater Seattle Accouniting

When you connect the dots with the Kirkland sign and the audit in Alaska - it seems like we may be onto something.

I don't want to join Linkedin just to find out though.

By the way - anyone know of someone from our youth who became famous?  I can't think of any off hand.

I wouldn't call him famous.  But Billy Earl was a professional bull rider in the R.C.A. for a few years.  I spent some time with him in Dallas/Ft. Worth after he looked me up around 1967.  I've always like cows, having been around them in my very early years.  I learned on the rodeo circuit that I can't say the same for bulls.

Sandra Wittmeier (Taylor)

Dear Alums,  A BIG THANK YOU to those of you who have contributed to the class fund.  It is a huge help and guarantees the sammamish63.com website will continue for the near future.   For those who have yet to contribute, please feel free to send in whatever you can so we may build up a cushion.  I will keep you apprised of the accounting.  Hope you all had a festive Thanksgiving and are looking forward to the coming Christmas season with unbridled anticipation.    CHEERS, Sandy W Taylor, class administrator

Art Hyland

So I woke up in the early hours somehow thinking of our Sammamish class, and the dizzying memories of so many circumstances including routine events and days.  But for some reason I keep coming back to the question I raised at the beginning of my Profile Questions and Answers.  I’ve updated the age below, but otherwise here’s the thought:

“1. When we were sophomores, fellow students Janice Amann (sp?) and Dennis Sorenson quietly left Sammamish because she was pregnant with their baby; their child would now be 57 years old! I've wondered for years whatever became of them, and hoped that after all was said and done they lived as prosperously as those of us who graduated without them.”

Denny was a very gifted athlete, and would have been a star I think on any team he would have played on in high school, but for what must have been a day or night of passion.  Janice was a friendly, good looking gal who seemed quite serious for her age I recall, but really I never got to know either of them well, nor perhaps did any of us.  One day they were here, the next they were gone as if abducted by aliens.

Actually it wasn’t as abrupt; something that might happen to any given classmate, other than a close friend, was something that took time to percolate among the class.  I think I recall some of us guys eventually talking about what must have happened, and thinking about Denny because, well, he wasn’t among the guys anymore, and now he and Janice were together, no more a part of what was just beginning to be our high school experience.  For all intents and purposes, they really just disappeared from the society we all were immersed in, and so the herd moved on without them.

However, for all these decades I really have thought a lot about what happened to them, what might have become of them had it been different, and how they could have individually experienced what we did but couldn’t.  Or, what might have been if they had both remained in school.  So many permutations of experiences one might imagine for two classmates who were and then weren’t part of all of us.  

If anyone has the slightest information about them during that temporary time they were with us and especially once they departed from the class, I’d be most interested.  As I said in the profile, I truly hope they had a good life despite not having the memories we all share as part of the Class of ’63.  

- - Art

P.S.  As for Marvin’s question, I nominate my old friend Buck Ferguson as at least semi-famous in that he is one of the owners of the Seattle Mariners, who had a pretty decent season all things considered.  But when you’re sort of famous, you probably become a little isolated, and Buck was always a pretty humble guy, so you won’t find him, or most anyone really, who likes to talk about themselves.

There was a time I happened to live in the same rural community as Milton Friedman who corralled me to play tennis from time to time as it was hard to find people to play with.  I didn’t have the time but made the time!  He could barely see over the net, but it was fun playing with a legend, and it was just after he received the Nobel Prize for Economics.  Lots of interesting discussions.  He wasn’t in our class however!  

Eric (Rick) Moon

I ran into Ernie Dantini's younger brother Gary in San Antonio TX, in Air Force boot camp in 1966.

Emilie Lamphere (Ortega)

My husband went to high school with Bobby Hatfield of the Rightous Brothers.   They were good friends.  Bobby and Don went to Anaheim HS and graduated together.  Bobby sang at all the school functions, of course.   Thats about as close to knowing someone famous, one level removed as I get.

Eric (Rick) Moon

Art - I attended the same church (Highland Covenant) as Denny and Jay, but I never learned how things turned out for them, and I don't remember seeing them at church after they were married.  Among our classmates who also attended that church were Bob Peterson and Kathi Poole (Sand).  Kathi's Dad was the pastor.  Perhaps one of them knows more than I do.

Famous people connection:  my brother Steve's second wife was Linda Droste, whose brother is Ed Droste, one of the co-founders of Hooters.

Marvin Knox

Art,

Dennis crossed my mind just the other day.  I’ll share the reason with you here.

I knew Dennis from the age of 10 - maybe even 9.  I can’t say we were fast friends.  But he lived in Eastgate where I lived and went to Eastgate Elementary with me. 

You mentioned what a gifted athlete he was and I can sure attest to that.  Most of us at 10 or 11 might be able to throw a baseball from the mound to the plate.  We might be able to get a football to spiral and, if it did, maybe throw it 20 yards.  I’m sure the elementary school playground with the baseball diamond was smaller than a high school diamond.  But it’s still a pretty good distance for a 4^th grade second baseman to throw to home plate with any effect. 

Dennis could throw a ball from the dodge ball area which was located out beyond the outfield of the playground – and send the ball across home plate.  I’m quite sure I couldn’t do that in the peak of my life.  He could also throw a football from there to the infield with what I remember as a perfect spiral.  And this was an elementary school kid who hadn’t even played organized sports yet in his life. 

He was simply born with gifts and abilities the rest of us just didn't have and most of us never would have. 

I’ve thought of him many times over the years.  I’ve often wondered, when I have contemplated the natural skills of young professional athletes - what Dennis could have become if life had taken a different turn for him. 

But, interestingly, that isn’t the context in which I thought of him the other day.  He came to my mind when I was thinking about the divorce of a friend of the family.  

When first I met Dennis his last name wasn’t Sorenson.  It was Gary.  I knew him as Dennis Gary one year and the next year, when he returned after summer break, I knew him as Dennis Sorenson.  It took me some time to get my head around it.

Although my parents would also someday divorce – this was the very first contact I ever had with the idea of a broken family.  Of course divorce and remarriage are quite common now and I doubt that such an event would take root in the mind of a youngster and last prominently for over 60 years as it has with me –  coming to mind many of the times I have thought about divorce and remarriage.

I've sometimes wondered how that effected Dennis as he approached his turbulent teens.

Emilie Lamphere (Ortega)

I never was able to have children.   At 23, my appendix burst and ruined any chances for me to have children.  I was so sick for months as the poison slowly left my system.  Thus, steralizing me forever.   I did however manage to marry, a number of times.  Won't go into how many, but finally on the third try I got it right.   He died 10 years later.  Divorce is devistating even without children.   I was paralized with fear of failure and there were a number of years between marriages and men in my life.   So, I can only imagine how it would effect children who have no control over what the adults in their family do.  The only time I was grateful not to have children, was when I was going through divorce.   My poor mother, having me as an only child, had many more son-in-laws then one...she kidded me about it saying good thing I only had one child, or I would have had dozens of son-in-laws.   I did not think it was funny.

Deborah Wallick (Quimby)

Emilie and all,

I am so sorry you went through so much, Emilie. As I lost one child, I now have an only child. It is lonely out there.

Rick, we went to Bellevue Christian, Highland Covenant and Sammamish High together. You were pretty much a part of old memories, Quacker Cove, Snowqualmie pass, were you in German class with me? Mrs. Wolfe was not my favorite teacher. I often wonder how Bob Wallace did with his radiology clinic..

When Jay and Denny dropped out of sight, I used to write to Jay. I don't know why I did not talk on the phone. Her letters never showed one sign of regret. She happily anticipated her baby. They were living with Denny's parents, and they were treated well. Somehow I lost track--perhaps after the baby when Jay would have been busier. Jay was a beautiful person as was Denny.

I was very ignorant. It was my first year in public school, I was a "W" at the tail end of the lockers, so I got the next student in as a lockermate. She had been in Arizona because of "allergies." I was dumb enough to ask her if she would have to go back to Arizona for her allergies again. Such a hard time for girls and the treatment they went through should they become pregnant or as Queen Ellizabeth puts it, "in the family way."

I, too, would love to know how Jay and Denny have done. I also wonder about Glenda Withers.

Deb Wallick Quimby

Robert Naff

E.J. Dantini

E.J., or Ernie as some called him, had an office on Rose Hill (NE 85th) up the street from I 405. I stopped by to see if he was interested in going to the 30th Annual Reunion and said he had no interest.

A frind of mine ran into E.J.  in either the '60's or '70's in Pullman where he ran a Beer distribution for a while, then became a member of the WSU administration for years as their finance person.

E.J. sold his CPA practice in either 2015 or 2016 to a firm in Everett. I haven't seen him since 2013.